Khan feels Kashmir should be recognized as a political issue

Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan said on Wednesday that Kashmir must be recognised as a political issue and resolved at the negotiating table.

Talking to Indian High Commissioner Sharat Sabharwal who had called on him at the party secretariat, Mr Khan stressed the need for dialogue on the Kashmir issue and said a roadmap would help disarm militants and reduce Indian military presence in occupied Kashmir. He said his party would bring a new outlook to relations with India after coming to power.

Former foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri, Dr Shireen Mazari and Ahmad Jawad were present on the occasion.

"We need a bold leadership which can convince people about the gains by exploring full potential of the subcontinent. We have to sell the idea of dividends of peace and to get out of the past," Mr Khan said while referring to Dr Mazari's idea of civil nuclear cooperation between Pakistan and India.

The Indian high commissioner said the Mumbai attack was a major setback for relations between the two countries.

The PTI chief alleged that the present government in Pakistan was a hurdle in moving forward in relations with India.

Mr Sabharwal said trade was now an agenda of the two countries, adding that there were three areas of concern for Pakistan - customs, lab testing and absence of a mechanism for addressing traders' grievances - while India was addressing the issue of market access.

Imran Khan said he was convinced that Pakistan could not survive with the present tax-to-GDP ratio. "We need to raise this, cut our expenditure and resolve energy crisis."

Meanwhile, the PTI chairman refused to participate as a keynote speaker in the India Today Conclave being held in New Delhi after he was informed that controversial figure Salman Rushdie would also address it.

He conveyed his regrets to the organisers and categorically said that he could not even think of participating in any programme which included Salman Rushdie who, according to Mr Khan, had caused immeasurable hurt to Muslims across the globe.

Trial for alleged human right abuses by Indian soldiers in Kashmir continue to be rejected by India

India has rejected every request over two decades to prosecute its soldiers in civilian courts in Indian-held Kashmir for alleged rights abuses, including murder and rape, according to documents AP received on Tuesday.

The revelation is likely to spark an outcry by Kashmiri activists who for years have accused Indian troops of abusing wide-ranging powers to search, seize and even shoot suspects. Those powers were given in 1990 when India faced a violent campaign in the Himalayan territory that has since waned significantly.

Under the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Kashmir needs federal approval for prosecuting paramilitary or army soldiers in civilian courts.

Officials in Kashmir have sought permission in 50 such cases in the last two decades, but New Delhi has refused every one, the territory's home ministry said in a response this week to a right-to-information request filed by The Coalition of Civil Society (CSC), a local rights group.

The Kashmiri government would not say what other options it could or would follow in seeking justice. "We're taking legal


recourse," Home Department Secretary B.R. Sharma said on Tuesday, without specifying what that might be.

The rights group said the information vindicated what Kashmiri activists have been arguing for years.

"It implies there is 100 per cent legal impunity for Indian troops operating in Jammu and Kashmir," said Khurram Parvez of the CSC.

The chief minister of the region, Omar Abdullah, proposed eliminating the special powers last year, but was rebuffed by the federal government after the army objected.

India has long relied on military might to retain control over Kashmir and has fought two territorial wars with Pakistan, which also claims the mountain region as its own.

Indian troops faced a bloody liberation movement in the early 1990s. The uprising and subsequent Indian crackdown killed 68,000 people, but the conflict has largely subsided with public opposition to Indian rule now expressed in street protests.

Nevertheless, the region remains heavily militarised, with hundreds of thousands of Indian troops stationed and maintaining checkpoints throughout the Indian-held territory. Pakistan and China also control portions of the region.

Human rights workers have accused Indian troops of illegally detaining, torturing and killing activists, sometimes even staging gunbattles as pretexts to kill.

The Indian army says it has punished 59 soldiers in 25 proven abuse cases, out of 995 complaints it has received, according to its website

Loss of Opportunities in the Land of Opportunities

By: Sarah Eleazar


ZoneAsia-Pk

'At the time of independence Pakistan had something around two and a half textile mills; a small unit at Lahore and one in Faisalabad. We decided to shift production to Multan as Faisalabad would be too big for two textile mills.' Thus began Mian Mughees A Sheikh's personal account of the historical political and socioeconomic conditions prevalent in Pakistan's nascent years when industries first began agglomerate in the predominantly agro based economy of Pakistan. The current state of the textile sector, once Pakistan's industrial forte is festering and fizzling away due to unbridled malfeasance by pencil pushers in a dysfunctional system set in place by self serving individuals.

Lyallpur was home to Delhi Cloth Mills of Sir Sri Ram before independence, when Colony Textiles was set up in 1945. The first three textile mills to go into production in West Pakistan were Kohinoor in Faisalabad, Colony in Multan and Valika in Karachi. Initially the 15,00,000 bales of cotton produced in Pakistan were considered sufficient to meet local demand; this volume has now swelled to over 15 million bales now with textiles accounting for 55% of total export proceeds of the country. [1]It took Pakistan ten to fifteen years to establish a foothold in this sector before it began exporting textile products abroad.

Read Complete Article

WHO IS THE WAR ON TERROR AGAINST ANYWAY?

By: Nida Afaque


Spearhead Research

Coalition forces have announced the end of their operations in Afghanistan by 2014 and reconciliation processes to hand over control to local forces is underway. Will US and its allies be effective in terminating the threat of militants by that time or will the War on Terror pick a new adversary and venue for its genocide?

The 9/11 disaster made it obvious that the US were going to rout out the terrorists who had infringed upon their national security. The Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed by the Congress soon after the incident. It authorized the US president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons... [who]… planned, authorized, committed… aided or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism…" This loosely formulated bill was the golden ticket to take an anti-terrorist war to any corner of the earth. But after 10 years worth thousands of lives and millions of dollars, the goals of this war are becoming foggy.

The US government claims to follow the Law of Armed Conflict in its international war against terrorism. This law regulates the conduct of forces involved in conflict and seeks to protect civilians, the wounded and prisoners. According to the law, the conflict must be military necessary i.e. only those acts are allowed which are necessary to achieve military goals, the combatant must be clearly identified and distinguished from non-combatants and the force used must be proportionate so that collateral damage can be minimized.

But the very term "armed conflict" is disputed. How can one know for sure the exact conditions that constitute this conflict? The presence of an armed conflict will affect the way opponents are treated in captivity- he/she could be tried as a civilian in the host country or treated as a combatant if war conditions prevail. Rules of war must be used when no alternative law enforcement system is present, not when it suits the purposes of the defender.

Furthermore, identifying a combatant is difficult if not impossible. Many soldiers admit the variables in the battlefield make it difficult to make these decisions in a timely manner. A combatant is one who actively participates in hostilities against the other party. However, when it comes to terrorism, these activities are likely to be covert and so the links between these activities and violence might be blurred. In addition, military necessity and proportionate force cannot be measured and would be interpreted differently by different parties. All this makes it easier to get away with offenses against international laws.

Under the terms of such laws of war, the US military and its allies targeted al-Qaeda in Iraq and gradually took down most of its senior leaders. The Abbottabad raid that killed Bin Laden was the last straw for al-Qaeda. But just like Ex-President Bush claimed the war will not end with al-Qaeda even though it started with it. US forces now focused their attention on Afghanistan to destroy it as a base for al-Qaeda. This move however, opened the door to many other militant organizations like Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP), Haqaani Network, Lashkar-e-Taiba etc which might or might not be linked to each other.

There are multiple narratives of the war in Afghanistan. US set out to annihilate those persons or organizations which were a threat to its national security. They believed al-Qaeda grew in areas with fragmented governance and after reducing al-Qaeda's power, it tried to install a political stable anti-terrorist Afghan government to prevent Al-Qaeda from returning to this region to build its forces.


The Afghan Taliban were targeted by US forces for providing a safe haven to Bin Laden. Foreign intervention however, was seen as an encroachment on their fundamental rights. The battle that ensued defeated the Taliban and a pro-American Afghan Government was set up under Karzai. This further angered the Taliban who fought to regain their position as leaders of the nation.

Militant groups like the TTP and the Haqqani network, whose grievances were against the Pakistani state, are said to be supporting the Afghan Taliban against the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Pakistan Taliban hold Mullah Omer to be their leader even though Afghan Taliban have disapprove of their attacks on the Pakistani government and people. But Afghan Taliban need the TTP to maintain their refuges in North and South Waziristan and to also recruit new soldiers and suicide bombers for their fight. Some reports believe the Haqqani Network is used by the Afghan Taliban to maintain peace between TTP and other Taliban factions.

The American Military feel its mission is greatly hindered by the presence of these additional insurgents. They are deeply concerned about the recruitment activities held in Pakistan which provide a never-ending supply of militants and the production of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which have been the cause of many deaths amongst the international forces. Material used in these bombs such as fertilizer has been traced back to Pakistan. For this reason, the US forces have enlisted the support of Pakistan to control militants on its soil. Pakistan receives $800 million annually from the US under the Coalition Support Fund.

Al-Qaeda's power has indeed been diminished but it is still suspected of aiding militants on either side of the border. Many make the mistake of believing the Taliban and al-Qaeda to be one in the same thing but in reality the two groups are quite distinct. Al-Qaeda is a global movement which is treated as a threat by the Americans. The Taliban are, however, a more localized force and are not interested in international terrorism. The two groups interact on an individual, religious or contextual level (as in the case of the War of Terror). Worried about their own security, the Afghan Taliban have refrained from openly denouncing al-Qaeda but have still tried to keep themselves separate from them. To the disappointment of elder Taliban leaders, their new generation which is less nationalistic and more radical-minded is malleable to the ideologies of Al-Qaeda. The Afghan Taliban want to establish a government to their liking that abides by the Islamic laws and wishes to get rid of any foreign influence in Afghanistan. Mutual interests have promoted collaboration between al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban.


The situation holds true across the border too. The Pakistan Taliban have similar ideologies as al-Qaeda. They believe the parliament to be un-Islamic and the government to be a traitor for associating with Western powers. Despite its close relations with Pakistan's ISI, al-Qaeda leaders saw Pakistan inclining towards the US and offered its help to the local militants. It has reportedly mediated amongst Pakistani militant groups and factions and has even provided human resources for suicide missions to the Haqqani Network to use in Afghanistan. Over the past year or two, TTP have been involved in many high profile kidnappings and the ransom collected is often sent across the border to the Afghan Taliban.

Foreign occupation of Afghanistan gave birth to the ideal circumstances Al-Qaeda could ever wish for. Religious scholars' decrees about fighting non-Muslim occupiers could be fully realized. They used the Taliban's dissent against NATO forces to further their goal of resisting western domination and creating a radical Islamic world. A longer foreign presence would give them the opportunity to unite more and more people under their movement.

Earlier this month, reports claimed that Al-Qaeda's threat had been misjudged and home grown terrorism maybe on the rise. At the moment, Al-Qaeda is involved in small scale skirmishes against governments and the Western powers through its offshoots like Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and most recently, with Islamic militants in Somalia called Al-Shabab.


The War on Terror has changed its dynamics over the last decade and its loosely defined boundaries have only permitted it to continue unchecked. It is extremely likely to meet a set of different conditions in the field. With unknown adversaries, unfamiliar surroundings and no manual to handle such situations, decision are made which have even changed the course of this war. In heading out for al-Qaeda, NATO troops have clashed with local leaders and the death of innocent civilians has transformed many natives into militants. This has only made their mission more complicated.

Both intentionally and unintentionally, the Taliban, TTP and al-Qaeda have come to mean the same thing to the common man. They all represent an ideology, a mind-set which involves violent means of opposing western influence and protecting their religious beliefs. So like President Bush said back in 2001, "Our war on terror will be much broader than the battlefields and beachheads of the past. The war will be fought wherever terrorists hide, or run, or plan."

War narratives will vary depending on which camp you belong to and this very fact makes negotiations a challenge. It remains to be seen how Western powers will leave the Afghan battlefield; the extent to which they will give in to the demands of the Afghan Taliban without undoing the fruits of their labor. Changing the ideology of your enemy is the most sustainable way to ensure peace but it is also the toughest task to implement. If negotiators are not careful, a disagreement or cut off could set off a sequel to War of Terror.

Understanding the Baloch

Area 14/8

Now a days, the basic problem is that people are not aware of history, everyone goes by what the media feeds them and media is Zionist dominated. What the media is telling are what the Zionists want to achieve therefore they engineer the facts; in most cases the facts are removed or replaced by the people in between so that no linkages can be established.

Since past sometime, United States, the United Kingdom and one silent participant Australia are busy distorting the facts and presenting stories out of context. In this game, as admitted by Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister in a meeting with Yousaf Raza Gillani at Sharmal Shaikh that India has linkages with Baloch insurgency and dissidents. The role of Zionist Israel cannot be ruled out since it's behind everything that's happening in the world but more so in the Muslim World. In case of Pakistan Zino-Hindutwa axis are very strong.

Our educationists and sociologists have failed to impart the education of history in its true perspective that is precisely the reason that today we are a lost nation. Everyone tends to believe what the West says and they go by it. Politicians are not aware of the history as most people in the assemblies consists of those who either are not aware of their own history or are in the process of taking new identities to delink from their past. With this sort of people in the parliaments, one can never expect anything good but what suits them the best.

In 1910, a Scottish-American, Andrew Carnegie, who had made, his fortune in 'Steel Industry', left a $10 million Endowment for international peace-which is the fore-runner of other Carnegie related ventures, however, what his intentions had been, and what the endowment has created are two different aspects. The Carnegie Journalist program, was launched in 1974, though with an outward image to anticipate, 'Near-Horizon' problems, in reality it was to induct journalists from world over, to create a hype, to keep a check on, the soviets (USSR) global moves. The journalists went for superficial, which an average reader could co-relate with. So, started the 'Awareness of the Baluchistan issue.'

An insurgency was very much so on ground, however no one bothered to find the reason why? The British legacy had left their created Sardars, who while retaining their feudalistic powers, wanted to gain, the political legitimacy as well. They followed the policy of what is mine is mine, and what is yours (of the people of their tribes) is also mine!

The royalties taken on concessions, were technically for the welfare of the people, within the tribal setups, but spent by the Sardars as their own bounty, while the poor people, had no recourse but move in an exodus, from the regions, as is seen, in the last over 100 years, to seek a living elsewhere.

The tribes of the Sindh valley over the past 1600 years or so have been constantly on the move; as one studies and discovers, natural calamities, plagues, and wars all took their toll. The transformation from one major tribal setup to another, had been a question of survival or escape from the domination of the strong and the cruel. Our Social mores, are based on an egalitarian society, and people of the area have always hated the feudal system to the core of their hearts, and hence the refuge in the wilderness or the remote valleys, But the intruders have from time to time imposed on us their lackeys or the willing amongst us who sold their souls, for a gain.

The geographic boundaries, which Pakistan was thrust with were legacy of our past rulers, though with reference to region under study its bulk area came, affiliated with either old Alor or Multan, Administrative, boundaries, Even in the Jam Nizam ud din Nandah period, (1461-1508) In the west, Till Bolan, inclusive of the Kaachi plains, was the part of, throne of Sindh. As were the Tal-chotiali, chacha, and barkhan regions, regions, wherein comes the present Mari and Bugti areas. It was in Akbar's time that Kandahar provinces, limits were extended till Duki. Rest being part of Multan Suba, as was Bolan and Kaachi areas, too.

The areas were well populated, and fertile, with Saraiki speaking people, when Naseer khan Barrohi, was given these areas,1740, for the services rendered, he pushed out the old people and transplanted them, with people of his own confederacy, the Eastern passes, of the Rohe Suleiman Range had been gateways of Trade, since Ancient Times, In the Mughal era with opening of Khyber pass, majority of Trade routes suffered, the cause, being the Movements, of Bayazids Ansari, heretics, and expansion of Safavid's in the east.

Now coming to the most pertinent question, which being, is the present head of Bugti tribe and its Sept's (clans), Actually Balochi???

For that a study of the Notes on the Balochi, Barrohi, and the Sindhi tribes, should suffice.

Immediately after the creation of Baluchistan entity by the British, the Government ordered,

that the data be made of the Ethnic composition of various tribes of the region and inter-related ones, all the Mukhtiars and Mahaska's, in the revenue departments, in the districts concerned were ordered, The reports compiled, from, communications, histories, manuscripts and the popular oral accounts, which also covered, profession of, various, tribes, matrimonial, and other related customs, were submitted to Drum. Daudpota, member, Sindh public service commission, and published in 1901.

The excerpts of the report state (p-26/27), covering the Bugti tribe, In January 1890,on the recommendation of Robert Sandmen, Shahbaz khan, was conferred with the tittle of a Nawab, he was also later given a large tract of land on the Jamrau canal, for rendering assistance, during the outbreak of the ,HUR, in 1896/1897.Here without going in the details of the 24 Sept or clans of Bugti Confederacy, the report states, that, The chief of the tribe is Nawab Shahbaz Khan, Rahejo Bugti, son of Ghulam Murtaza Khan rahejo Bugti, A popular account says that Rahejo or more commonly called, Rahuja, are from the Major Sindhi tribal set up of the 'Samma', to which the great ancestor of the present Bugti chief belonged, and that by Association with the Balochi's and settlement in the old Bugti hills and streams, his descendants became Bugti Baloch, and if we study the Samma, tribal Sept's/clans which number in all 766,we find Raheja, very much so part of their entity (pages-44 to 53,and for more details in minor off shoots, pages 89 to 97)

If one follows the Baloch population, one would more Baloch living in the Punjab alone than what are living in Balochistan; then there is a strong Baloch population in Sindh as well. All these Baloch shifted out from Balochistan for various reasons and one of them was the treatment meted out to these people by the Sardars therefore they took a refuge away from their ancestral places.

These Sardars have always demanded money for their loyalties but never spent a penny on the welfare of their people. When one meets the tribesmen, they show resentment and unhappiness with these Sardars and their system.

Makran Coast is a different ethnic and cultural background. It was under the occupation of Sultanate of Oman. In 1956, Feroze Khan Noon, then the Prime Minister of Pakistan had bought it by paying cash to Oman. Therefore it does not form part of Balochistan, also the Pathan population of Balochistan is over 50% and then there are settlers and Brohis also. Thus the entire land does not belong to the Baloch.

Have people and media men in particular forgotten that on the 1973 constitution even the Baloch Sardars had their signatures to approve it unanimously now how can they claim that Pakistan has occupied their lands forcefully.

The key element in the Afghanistan problem

By: Salman Haqqi

A few years ago, while still in college, I attended a talk by Robert Fisk, the Middle East Bureau Chief for The Independent in UK.

He was in his usual Fisk-ian form. Lambasting western journalists for their false equivalencies, he spoke passionately about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, recalled the atrocities committed in Iraq that he had had seen personally and basically painted a dismal picture for the future of the Middle East - one of eternal war and endless suffering.

Later on, I was lucky enough to get a few minutes with him alone, at which point I told him I was from Pakistan. He sighed as if a great burden had just descended down on him and gave me a knowing half-smile. I asked him about Afghanistan.

"We don't read our history books." he said. "The battles in Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan, is not about Afghanistan - it's about Kashmir. Many of the Taliban come from Kashmir, and the Pakistan military and the ISI have boosted their support for the Taliban because they believe the Indians are backing [Hamid] Karzai. By allowing India to control to fate of Kashmir, we have not only helped Pakistan to disintegrate, but ensured that Pakistani forces will help the Taliban, and the war will continue in Afghanistan."

Fisk isn't the only one to have voiced these sentiments. In an interview on National Public Radio in Washington DC, Admiral Mullen in 2011 said concerning Afghanistan, "I think unlocking Kashmir, which is a very difficult issue on the Pak-Indian border, is one that opens it all up."

Kashmir is the reason Pakistan started utilising militant groups as not only proxies, but more specifically as "weapons" against India, in what is commonly known in security circles as Pakistan's "Bleed India" campaign.

The use of militant groups as proxies has gone ignored by the US despite constant attacks against India. During his tenure, Mullen tried to seek the necessary civilian solutions between the three nation states as the key to solving this problem for all countries, but the efforts were perfunctory at best.

"Engagements with the civilian leaders, engagements with the economic leaders, engagements in the region, I believe we have to continue to try to, all of us, figure out a way to work that as well," Mullen observed.

The folly in this whole plan to this point, it is said, remains with India, whose constant refusal of outside intervention or mediation and framing the problem as an "internal issue." The general consensus among many people is that the Indians need to come to the realisation at some point that they must finally show some flexibility in the Kashmir issue.

But that's only half of the story. For nearly a decade, the US has done little in terms of concrete efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan. And because of this the ISI still allows Afghan and Central Asian terrorist groups to operate from Pakistani soil and refuses to clamp down on the anti-Indian terrorist groups operating from the Punjab province, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which launched the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

US negligence of the realities of the region has allowed foreign militants to radicalise Pakistani Pashtun tribes. Yet Pakistani strategists still think they can crush the homegrown militants while maintaining the Afghan Taliban as a proxy force for a final settlement in Afghanistan.

But while America's mistakes are many and mendacious, its biggest mistake is its failure to recognise - or its ignorance of - Pakistan's masochistic obsession with India. It's been a known fact for decades that Pakistan's army has historically been consumed with Indian expansion in the region, and has taken the billions in aid from the US to channel into weapons system for the next confrontation with India at great domestic costs. General Ashfaq Kayani has readily admitted to his philosophy on security to be "India-centric."

While all that may be true, Fisk said, it isn't really about Indian inflexibility or Pakistani intransigence in supporting militants. In the end, he said, it's about justice and injustice.

"American authorities need to engage with Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, and play the even handed role, which they are not playing in Kashmir any more than they are playing in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict," he said. "And the reason [US and Britain] let the injustices continue is simply because India is the largest burgeoning economy in that area. America and Britain see India as the main buffer state against China and therefore we will support what India wants in Kashmir - not what the people of Kashmir want, but what India wants."

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta who has been highly critical of Pakistan's links with the Haqqani Network, has also recognised the Kashmir-Afghanistan linkage. During a Q&A in Washington last year, he admitted that Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are "all part of a very vital area, a very vital region and that an awful lot of history created incredible complexities and difficulties" for US efforts to bring India, Pakistan and Afghanistan together.

Panetta went on to say that, "we [US] have urged them [Pakistan] to work with India to try to resolve the issues along the border area, because ultimately, until that is done, we are going to continue to have a great deal of instability."

The remark is a telling representation of the hands-off attitude the US has when it comes to Kashmir.

Before he was elected, Barack Obama suggested he would try to resolve the India-Pakistan rivalry, and the Kashmir dispute that fuels it. But of course, the chasm between campaign Obama and President Obama is where his presidency has lost the credibility he had garnered both in terms of domestic and foreign policy.

While the United States has remained silent on Kashmir, a new Indo-Pak rivalry has erupted over the battle for influence in a post-US-withdrawal world, manifested in terrorist attacks on Indian diplomats and road workers in Afghanistan and, Pakistan claims, Indian-sponsored unrest in Balochistan.

The dichotomy of US policy in the region is that in its attempt to be farsighted in its geopolitical chess game with Russia and China, it has rendered its short term policies to be myopic to the point of foolishness.

This, as Fisk said, "is the equation that turns sand into blood."

A few years ago, while still in college, I attended a talk by Robert Fisk, the Middle East Bureau Chief for The Independent in UK.

He was in his usual Fisk-ian form. Lambasting western journalists for their false equivalencies, he spoke passionately about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, recalled the atrocities committed in Iraq that he had had seen personally and basically painted a dismal picture for the future of the Middle East - one of eternal war and endless suffering.

Later on, I was lucky enough to get a few minutes with him alone, at which point I told him I was from Pakistan. He sighed as if a great burden had just descended down on him and gave me a knowing half-smile. I asked him about Afghanistan.

"We don't read our history books." he said. "The battles in Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan, is not about Afghanistan - it's about Kashmir. Many of the Taliban come from Kashmir, and the Pakistan military and the ISI have boosted their support for the Taliban because they believe the Indians are backing [Hamid] Karzai. By allowing India to control to fate of Kashmir, we have not only helped Pakistan to disintegrate, but ensured that Pakistani forces will help the Taliban, and the war will continue in Afghanistan."

Fisk isn't the only one to have voiced these sentiments. In an interview on National Public Radio in Washington DC, Admiral Mullen in 2011 said concerning Afghanistan, "I think unlocking Kashmir, which is a very difficult issue on the Pak-Indian border, is one that opens it all up."

Kashmir is the reason Pakistan started utilising militant groups as not only proxies, but more specifically as "weapons" against India, in what is commonly known in security circles as Pakistan's "Bleed India" campaign.

The use of militant groups as proxies has gone ignored by the US despite constant attacks against India. During his tenure, Mullen tried to seek the necessary civilian solutions between the three nation states as the key to solving this problem for all countries, but the efforts were perfunctory at best.

"Engagements with the civilian leaders, engagements with the economic leaders, engagements in the region, I believe we have to continue to try to, all of us, figure out a way to work that as well," Mullen observed.

The folly in this whole plan to this point, it is said, remains with India, whose constant refusal of outside intervention or mediation and framing the problem as an "internal issue." The general consensus among many people is that the Indians need to come to the realisation at some point that they must finally show some flexibility in the Kashmir issue.

But that's only half of the story. For nearly a decade, the US has done little in terms of concrete efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan. And because of this the ISI still allows Afghan and Central Asian terrorist groups to operate from Pakistani soil and refuses to clamp down on the anti-Indian terrorist groups operating from the Punjab province, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which launched the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

US negligence of the realities of the region has allowed foreign militants to radicalise Pakistani Pashtun tribes. Yet Pakistani strategists still think they can crush the homegrown militants while maintaining the Afghan Taliban as a proxy force for a final settlement in Afghanistan.

But while America's mistakes are many and mendacious, its biggest mistake is its failure to recognise - or its ignorance of - Pakistan's masochistic obsession with India. It's been a known fact for decades that Pakistan's army has historically been consumed with Indian expansion in the region, and has taken the billions in aid from the US to channel into weapons system for the next confrontation with India at great domestic costs. General Ashfaq Kayani has readily admitted to his philosophy on security to be "India-centric."

While all that may be true, Fisk said, it isn't really about Indian inflexibility or Pakistani intransigence in supporting militants. In the end, he said, it's about justice and injustice.

"American authorities need to engage with Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, and play the even handed role, which they are not playing in Kashmir any more than they are playing in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict," he said. "And the reason [US and Britain] let the injustices continue is simply because India is the largest burgeoning economy in that area. America and Britain see India as the main buffer state against China and therefore we will support what India wants in Kashmir - not what the people of Kashmir want, but what India wants."

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta who has been highly critical of Pakistan's links with the Haqqani Network, has also recognised the Kashmir-Afghanistan linkage. During a Q&A in Washington last year, he admitted that Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are "all part of a very vital area, a very vital region and that an awful lot of history created incredible complexities and difficulties" for US efforts to bring India, Pakistan and Afghanistan together.

Panetta went on to say that, "we [US] have urged them [Pakistan] to work with India to try to resolve the issues along the border area, because ultimately, until that is done, we are going to continue to have a great deal of instability."

The remark is a telling representation of the hands-off attitude the US has when it comes to Kashmir.

Before he was elected, Barack Obama suggested he would try to resolve the India-Pakistan rivalry, and the Kashmir dispute that fuels it. But of course, the chasm between campaign Obama and President Obama is where his presidency has lost the credibility he had garnered both in terms of domestic and foreign policy.

While the United States has remained silent on Kashmir, a new Indo-Pak rivalry has erupted over the battle for influence in a post-US-withdrawal world, manifested in terrorist attacks on Indian diplomats and road workers in Afghanistan and, Pakistan claims, Indian-sponsored unrest in Balochistan.

The dichotomy of US policy in the region is that in its attempt to be farsighted in its geopolitical chess game with Russia and China, it has rendered its short term policies to be myopic to the point of foolishness.

This, as Fisk said, "is the equation that turns sand into blood."

A few years ago, while still in college, I attended a talk by Robert Fisk, the Middle East Bureau Chief for The Independent in UK.

He was in his usual Fisk-ian form. Lambasting western journalists for their false equivalencies, he spoke passionately about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, recalled the atrocities committed in Iraq that he had had seen personally and basically painted a dismal picture for the future of the Middle East - one of eternal war and endless suffering.

Later on, I was lucky enough to get a few minutes with him alone, at which point I told him I was from Pakistan. He sighed as if a great burden had just descended down on him and gave me a knowing half-smile. I asked him about Afghanistan.

"We don't read our history books." he said. "The battles in Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan, is not about Afghanistan - it's about Kashmir. Many of the Taliban come from Kashmir, and the Pakistan military and the ISI have boosted their support for the Taliban because they believe the Indians are backing [Hamid] Karzai. By allowing India to control to fate of Kashmir, we have not only helped Pakistan to disintegrate, but ensured that Pakistani forces will help the Taliban, and the war will continue in Afghanistan."

Fisk isn't the only one to have voiced these sentiments. In an interview on National Public Radio in Washington DC, Admiral Mullen in 2011 said concerning Afghanistan, "I think unlocking Kashmir, which is a very difficult issue on the Pak-Indian border, is one that opens it all up."

Kashmir is the reason Pakistan started utilising militant groups as not only proxies, but more specifically as "weapons" against India, in what is commonly known in security circles as Pakistan's "Bleed India" campaign.

The use of militant groups as proxies has gone ignored by the US despite constant attacks against India. During his tenure, Mullen tried to seek the necessary civilian solutions between the three nation states as the key to solving this problem for all countries, but the efforts were perfunctory at best.

"Engagements with the civilian leaders, engagements with the economic leaders, engagements in the region, I believe we have to continue to try to, all of us, figure out a way to work that as well," Mullen observed.

The folly in this whole plan to this point, it is said, remains with India, whose constant refusal of outside intervention or mediation and framing the problem as an "internal issue." The general consensus among many people is that the Indians need to come to the realisation at some point that they must finally show some flexibility in the Kashmir issue.

But that's only half of the story. For nearly a decade, the US has done little in terms of concrete efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan. And because of this the ISI still allows Afghan and Central Asian terrorist groups to operate from Pakistani soil and refuses to clamp down on the anti-Indian terrorist groups operating from the Punjab province, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which launched the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

US negligence of the realities of the region has allowed foreign militants to radicalise Pakistani Pashtun tribes. Yet Pakistani strategists still think they can crush the homegrown militants while maintaining the Afghan Taliban as a proxy force for a final settlement in Afghanistan.

But while America's mistakes are many and mendacious, its biggest mistake is its failure to recognise - or its ignorance of - Pakistan's masochistic obsession with India. It's been a known fact for decades that Pakistan's army has historically been consumed with Indian expansion in the region, and has taken the billions in aid from the US to channel into weapons system for the next confrontation with India at great domestic costs. General Ashfaq Kayani has readily admitted to his philosophy on security to be "India-centric."

While all that may be true, Fisk said, it isn't really about Indian inflexibility or Pakistani intransigence in supporting militants. In the end, he said, it's about justice and injustice.

"American authorities need to engage with Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, and play the even handed role, which they are not playing in Kashmir any more than they are playing in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict," he said. "And the reason [US and Britain] let the injustices continue is simply because India is the largest burgeoning economy in that area. America and Britain see India as the main buffer state against China and therefore we will support what India wants in Kashmir - not what the people of Kashmir want, but what India wants."

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta who has been highly critical of Pakistan's links with the Haqqani Network, has also recognised the Kashmir-Afghanistan linkage. During a Q&A in Washington last year, he admitted that Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are "all part of a very vital area, a very vital region and that an awful lot of history created incredible complexities and difficulties" for US efforts to bring India, Pakistan and Afghanistan together.

Panetta went on to say that, "we [US] have urged them [Pakistan] to work with India to try to resolve the issues along the border area, because ultimately, until that is done, we are going to continue to have a great deal of instability."

The remark is a telling representation of the hands-off attitude the US has when it comes to Kashmir.

Before he was elected, Barack Obama suggested he would try to resolve the India-Pakistan rivalry, and the Kashmir dispute that fuels it. But of course, the chasm between campaign Obama and President Obama is where his presidency has lost the credibility he had garnered both in terms of domestic and foreign policy.

While the United States has remained silent on Kashmir, a new Indo-Pak rivalry has erupted over the battle for influence in a post-US-withdrawal world, manifested in terrorist attacks on Indian diplomats and road workers in Afghanistan and, Pakistan claims, Indian-sponsored unrest in Balochistan.

The dichotomy of US policy in the region is that in its attempt to be farsighted in its geopolitical chess game with Russia and China, it has rendered its short term policies to be myopic to the point of foolishness.

This, as Fisk said, "is the equation that turns sand into blood."

STRAWS IN THE WIND

By Ahsan Waheed


ZoneAsia-Pk

There is a big hype in the media about the Prime Minister's fate at the hands of the judiciary. It is certainly news and a sad day for Pakistan but not the kind of catastrophe that it is made out to be. If he is convicted and goes there will be another Prime Minister and it will be business as usual. The majority feel that he should be allowed to complete his term and that writing a letter to a foreign government about an elected President is not what our government should be doing. In any case these matters are good for drawing room discussions and media speculations but do not matter one way or the other.

Then there is the furor over the memo, the so called memo-gate. This non starter from the outset started off with a bang, created some fireworks and collapsed with a whimper. It is being dragged along but no one is interested any more. If two functionaries had to depart then another two took their place. If there was some hard talk then it was followed by clarifications and assurance. The whole thing was and remains farcical.

We now have the drama of the ISI Chiefs replacement. This is a routine affair and there are clear cut procedures for it. If he gets another extension it will be good because he is a straight talking and straight shooting man who has done a great job. If he retires he will be replaced by a suitable lieutenant general selected from the panel of names given by the military. The US Ambassador has commented upon this change in his address in Massachusetts. The US is 'monitoring' this change as if it matters or as if it can do anything about it. One of the analysts from the many who make a living out of commenting on Pakistan has said that this change is very significant because the ISI is not just an intelligence agency but it actually makes policy. So has it made all the policies that are being implemented? All this does boost the ISI image by driving home the point that it is an obsession for many who are terrified by it. That's not too bad-is it?

The US is talking to the Taliban and have allowed them an office in Qatar so that others can talk too. Everyone and his aunt know that the US is preparing for a face saving exit after being defeated and after failing to create any sustainable structures in Afghanistan. The Taliban and others are licking their chops at the prospect of tucking into the pathetic caricature that is the Afghan Security Forces. The suited guys in government are looking at getting out as quietly as possible to wherever they came from. After the US and NATO leave it will be business as usual in and around Afghanistan. Karzai will be ditched and will be history-not that it will make any difference.

There is the matter of who kept Osama under wraps. A bitter, sick retired general with an axe to grind has blamed Musharraf and everyone is running round in circles. A doctor recruited by the US to find Osama is being interrogated and the US is 'concerned'---he is a Pakistani and not a US citizen. US 'diplomats' continue to be tripped up some where or the other-the latest being one caught at an airport with bullets in his bag. Every one wonders where his gun was hidden and whether they searched him thoroughly. Some mad cap 'fundos' with some misguided former position holders get up on a stage and make threatening noises and tremors go through the land and as far away as the US! The good thing is that Pakistan continues to tick over and Pakistanis cope with power shortages and soaring costs. If the NATO logistics resume through Pakistan the dollars will flow in---not bad at all.

What matters is Pakistan's economy, its internal situation, its institutions and public sector enterprises, its relations with neighbors and the world, its people and internal security. This is what we should be focusing on because if we get this right we are home free. Till we can do that let us develop thick skins and not get tickled by all these meaningless straws in the wind.

Punjab government promoting sports activities

Area 14/8

The Punjab government is pursuing a comprehensive programme to promote sports and playgrounds are being constructed throughout the province, says Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

According to a handout, the chief minister was talking to reporters after inaugurating a hockey ground and a gymnasium in Model Town here on Sunday.

Mr Sharif said sports helped the youth polish their abilities and a gigantic project of constructing playgrounds from Rahim Yar Khan to Attock was being implemented.

He said the provision of sporting facilities was responsibility of the Punjab government and it was fulfilling its obligation efficiently. Besides playgrounds for outdoor and indoor games, gymnasiums were also being constructed, he added.

He said AstroTurf would soon be laid in the Model Town hockey ground besides ensuring more facilities for spectators.

He said democracy meant furthering the mission of national service, removing flaws and setting the matters right by learning lessons from mistakes.

He said difference of opinion was beauty of democracy and rendering public service was basic principle of democracy. He said he had discussed energy crisis with the prime minister during recent meeting of the Council of Common Interests.

He said generating energy through coal and biogas was also discussed with the prime minister and that he had also agreed to the prime minister's decision to hold an energy conference in Lahore. He expressed his hope that the prime minister would announce some solid steps to overcome the energy crisis in that conference.

The chief minister also inaugurated Ittefaq Sports Complex in Model Town. He also distributed prizes among hockey players and later saw a friendly match.

Later, he inaugurated a gymnasium equipped with modern facilities, including a basketball pitch and a fitness centre.

Meanwhile, the chief minister has said that foundation stone of Ashiana Iqbal Housing Scheme on Burki Road will be laid on March 23 and besides construction of five, seven and 10-marla houses, apartments will also be constructed in that colony.

Taking a briefing regarding the project here on Sunday, the chief minister said that after the success of Saroba Attari Ashiana Housing Scheme, thousands of houses with modern facilities would be constructed in Ashiana Iqbal Housing Scheme for the poor and common man.

Punjab Land Development Company (PLDC) Chairman Sheikh Alauddin, Planning and Development Board chairman, senior Board of Revenue member, DCO and other officers were also present. PLDC chief executive officer Momin Agha gave the briefing.